Recently, the 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed two lower court decisions that had hamstrung the state’s ability to access bond funds for construction of California’s high-speed rail system. In the wake of that ruling, opponents of the project warned the decision could mean an end to direct democracy in California, claiming the three judges — appointed by governors from different parties — had unanimously conspired to deprive the voters of what they’d intended when they passed Proposition 1A, the bond measure funding the rail program.

According to opponents’ lawyers, Stuart Flashman and Michael Brady, the court ignored voter protections requiring a precise choreography of how the bonds could be accessed. Flashman said that “the Court has essentially allowed the Authority to ignore promises … made to California’s voters. It bodes ill for voters’ willingness to trust such promises in the future.” Mr. Brady added that “respect for the protection of the voters in the initiative process” had been “brushed aside” by the court.

Such dire assertions are not only baseless but constitute the height of hypocrisy.

The truth is that the High-Speed Rail Authority is building the fast, clean and self-sustaining rail network voters expected when they passed Proposition 1A. In contrast, Flashman and Brady and those they represent have consistently tried to thwart the will of the people with an incessant stream of litigation and political activism.

Along the way, these self-interested opponents have adopted high-minded rhetoric that they are the keepers of the faith for the ballot measure, wanting only to ensure that the system is built as intended. In fact, their actual motivation is more basic: “If you build it at all — and we’d rather you didn’t — build it in someone else’s backyard.”

Residents of Atherton and Kings County who oppose high-speed rail have had one consistent theme to their opposition: the rail line belongs somewhere else. With respect to the Bay Area, the litigation aims to avoid Atherton and Palo Alto, directing the train north over the Altamont Pass. In the Central Valley, the battle cry is that the train should be along Interstate 5.

Flashman, in an op-ed piece for another newspaper and disingenuously failing to identify himself as a plaintiff’s attorney, claimed the I-5 alignment was the right way to build high-speed rail. But Proposition 1A is clear that high-speed rail is intended to “connect the population centers of California,” specifically calling out Central Valley cities as well as San Jose.

If the plaintiffs had their way, Fresno, Bakersfield, Merced and Palmdale would be left out, bypassing some of the fastest-growing areas of the state that also face major environmental and economic challenges. Their plan would also relegate San Jose to second-class service, splitting trains so that only a few served California’s third-largest city. Those trains would have to reverse course in the station, meaning longer trip times. Is that what the citizens of San Jose who backed Proposition 1A thought they’d get?

All of this is intended to keep the rail line far away from their clients’ backyards.

Our program will comply with the mandates of Proposition 1A, from meeting required trip times to operating without a government subsidy. It is faithful to the will of the voters and it respects the public trust.

Certainly, opponents have a right to oppose the project. But they should be transparent and honest about their reasons, rather than attempt to create a smokescreen of misinformation to cover their true objectives.

It’s time to clear the air.

Dan Richard is chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. He wrote this for this newspaper.